The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a trust to arise under Section 6, Married Womens Property Act, it must appear on the face of the document that the insurance policy was effected for the benefit of the wife or the wife and children.

Burn, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore passed on E.P.R. No. 349 of 1935 in O.S. No. 261 of 1934. O.S. No. 261 was a suit filed by the United Planters Association of South India against a minor, Section Venkatasubramania Sarma, by his guardian. The suit was based upon the allegation that the father of the minor, Sundareswara Sarma, who had been employed as an accountant by the Association had misappropriated Rs. 7500 of the Associations money. A decree was passed in favour of the Association against the separate assets of the deceased Sundareswara Sarma if any in the hands of the minor defendant. The Association got an attachment before judgment of three sums: viz, (1) a sum of about Rs. 5000 representing the contributions of Sundareswara Sarma to the Associations Provident Fund; (2) an insurance policy of Rs. 1000 and (3) an insurance policy of Rs. 4000. Both the policies are issued by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Ltd. and copies of the policies were filed as Exs. 1 and 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the amount of Rs. 5000 representing Sundareswara Sarmas contributions to the Provident Fund could not be proceeded against and he came to the same decision with regard to the amount of Rs. 4000 due under Policy No. 353009, but he held that the amount of Rs. 1000 covered by Policy No. 123164 could be proceeded against. The learned Subordinate Judge said in his judgment that it had been fairly conceded on behalf of the defendant that the sum of Rs. 1000 could be proceeded against. Mr. Ramaswami Aiyengar who appears for the appellant in A.A.O. No. 16, says that the guardian of the minor defendant did not give the vakil in the lower Court any authority to make any such concession. We must take the learned Judges observation as representing the fact that the vakil whether with or without authority did make that concession, but it is not necessary to embark upon a discussion of whether the vakil had authority to make such a concession since we propose to consider that appeal also on its merits. Appeal No. 56 is filed by the Association from the decision of the learned Judge holding that the decree, holder was not entitled to promead against the amount of the policy for Rs. 4000 and the amount in the Provident Fund.

2. With regard to the amount in the Provident Fund, we agree with the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. An attempt was made to argue that the deceased Sundareswara Sarma has been dismissed from the Associations service before he died. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to allow that point to be raised before him. He said that if this were the fact, it ought to have been stated when the decree-holder first sought to attach the property. He says in para. 7 that it transpired at the trial that the deceased died while he was still in the service of the Association. This we are told is incorrect, but we note that the judgment in the suit itself begins with a recital that the Association sued to recover a certain sum of money from the son of Sundareswara Sarma, " who was employed under the Association as an accountant from 1927-28 till his death in 1934." We therefore follow the learned Subordinate Judge in declining to allow it to be argued on behalf of the Association that Sundareswara Sarma was dismissed before he died. This being so, we are of opinion that the rules of the Provident Fund are such that Sundareswara Sarmas contributions to the Provident Fund are not liable to attachment to defray his debts any more than the contributions of the Association itself. In fact if it be taken that Sundareswara Sarma died in service, it is not really possible to maintain that his contributions were liable to attachment.

3. The real contest is with regard to the two policies of insurance. We are of opinion that there is no difference between the two. Both of them are liable for the debts of Sundareawara Sarma, or neither. The le